Response of Stem Cell Supporters

[BlueMit11]

Despite the thread that I’m posting this in, I am actually not looking to get into a great debate about this issue. I am actually just curious, though for obvious reasons I couldn’t post this in GQ.

Anyway, I have heard it stated several times that adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cords are just as useful as (if not more useful than) embryonic stem cells. I have not heard a response to this fact on the other side, though. I would think it is important to counter something like this. After all, if we can avoid controversy by using adult/unbilical cord stem cells, wouldn’t everyone be happy about this? Maybe I’m just naive…

[Knorf]

NO, you see, we like to kill babies so only embyonic stem cells will do.

:rolleyes:

Do some reading.

[cmkeller]

The fact is that embryonic stem cells have certain properties that adult and umbilical stem cells do not show, and those properties lead scientists to believe that they have more potential to cure certain diseases than do other types of stem cells.

However, in practical usage, embryonic stem cells have not yet been shown to effect cures, whereas adult and umbilical cord stem cells are already in theraputic use.

[Meatros]

@Knorf

NO, you see, we like to kill babies so only embyonic stem cells will do.

:rolleyes:

Do some reading.

Dude, you told him our agenda!

For shame! We had a blood ritual and everything, you can’t just let this sort of thing slip out!

For all others in this thread: Your mind will be wiped by our agents in the field during the night.

[emacknight]

@BlueMit11

Anyway, I have heard it stated several times that adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cords are just as useful as (if not more useful than) embryonic stem cells.

Current research really isn’t at the stage where they can say either way which stem cell has more stemcelledness or stemcellability.

Your naivety comes from the fact that you have no idea where adult stem cells come from, or how they are extracted. Depending on location, there might be one adult stem cell in a billion cells, for umbilical stem cells the numbers are like 1 in a million. Embryonic stem cells are closer to 1 in 10. Those numbers are rough but should give you a better sense of why researchers would rather use one method over another.

[BlueMit11]

Wow…

So people get made fun of for asking sincere questions here at the SD? Guess it’s been awhile since I’ve posted.

[Avenger]

@BlueMit11

Wow…

So people get made fun of for asking sincere questions here at the SD? Guess it’s been awhile since I’ve posted.

You got your answer too, what’s your problem?

[Ca3799]

Here is a link to view a very interesting stem cell symposium held recently.

Link to view stem cell symposium

[Khadaji]

What is with the anger and agressiveness? BlueMit11 asked what seemed to be a sincere question. We here at the Dope pride ourselves in fighting ingnorance. This fight isn’t best served by making people feel bad for asking. “What’s the problem” you ask Avenger? The problem is, rudeness is still rudeness, even if it is accompanied by an answer.

[ITR_champion]

@BlueMit11

Anyway, I have heard it stated several times that adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cords are just as useful as (if not more useful than) embryonic stem cells. I have not heard a response to this fact on the other side, though. I would think it is important to counter something like this. After all, if we can avoid controversy by using adult/unbilical cord stem cells, wouldn’t everyone be happy about this? Maybe I’m just naive…

Adult stem cells do not differentiate as easily as embryonic stem cells do. I hold no quarrel with you for not knowing this little fact, assuming that you just got misinformed by somebody with an agenda, but the simple fact is that nobody who is qualified to write on this topic still believes that line, and the assertion that adult stem cells could work just as well as embryonic ones was based on bad science to begin with.

But more importantly, there is a principle at work here. What you’re saying is that those doing research with stem cells to combat deadly and crippling diseases should limit their research based on a demand from those with a religious agenda. In the United States, religious groups do not hold that sort of veto power. Medical research exists to cure and protect human beings, not to appease any religious group (or any other group).

[Avenger]

@Khadaji

What is with the anger and agressiveness? BlueMit11 asked what seemed to be a sincere question. We here at the Dope pride ourselves in fighting ingnorance. This fight isn’t best served by making people feel bad for asking. “What’s the problem” you ask Avenger? The problem is, rudeness is still rudeness, even if it is accompanied by an answer.

Didn’t really see any rudeness, that was my point. There was a little light hearted comment and a link to a useful source of information as requested.

[Khadaji]

@Avenger

Didn’t really see any rudeness, that was my point. There was a little light hearted comment and a link to a useful source of information as requested.

I think it wsa the :rolleyes: that makes it seem rude. And the terse “Do some reading” which is really all the OP wanted.

[GIGObuster]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085689/
Noah, Timothy. Why This Bush Lie? Part 1

[M]ore than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist," Bush said in his August 2001 stem-cell speech. "They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

That was not the truth. There was then only one stem-cell line that researchers in America could use. (Yep, even since then this president has lied to us) It seems the president got that number by adding other stem cell lines that actually where in other countries, in 2003 there were only 11 in the USA:

The Associated Press. Researchers Cite Stem Cell Shortage:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/tech/main553079.shtml

Faden, Ruth R. and Gearhart, John D. Facts on Stem Cells.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25071-2004Aug22.html

• As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, no non-embryonic sources of stem cells – not stem cells from cord blood or from any “adult” sources – have been shown to have anything like the potential to lead us to viable treatments for such diseases as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s and spinal cord injury that stem cells derived from very early embryos do. The science here is unequivocal: Access to embryonic stem cell lines is essential to rapid progress in stem cell research.

• The embryonic stem cell lines the president approved for federal funding three years ago, all of which were derived before August 2001, are clearly inadequate to advance stem cell science, let alone to take that science from the bench to the bedside. There are too few of them, no more than 21. All of the approved stem cell lines were prepared using mouse cells and thus pose a risk of contaminating human subjects with mouse viruses. This is a needless risk; since 2001 we have developed techniques for establishing embryonic stem cell lines without using mouse cells. Even if the approved lines were safe for use in humans, many patients who would be appropriate and willing participants in the first human trials would have difficulty receiving grafts based on these lines because of problems of genetic matching. There are just too few lines to even begin to accommodate the genetic diversity in our population.

• Under the current policy, it is not possible to use federal funding to generate or study stem cells derived from embryos with genetic defects or disease genes. Such cell lines would be invaluable in helping to determine the molecular basis of disease and in seeking ways to correct problems or ameliorate their consequences.

• Restricting federal funding to just the approved lines is retarding progress for financial as well as scientific reasons. The $25 million allocated by the Bush administration for embryonic stem cell research in 2003 is a tiny fraction of the National Institutes of Health budget of $18.3 billion for extramural research. To put this in perspective, in that same year the government spent almost eight times as much ($190.7 million) on research with less promising “adult” stem cells. There are formidable scientific and medical challenges to attaining our goal of providing cell-based therapies that are safe and effective. It will take the efforts of many scientists and clinicians in a variety of disciplines to bring this technology to the clinic. The results of laboratory investigations on human embryonic stem cells are highly encouraging and consistent with meeting this goal. Private funding of stem cell research is important and is increasingly forthcoming, but in these early stages, federal funding is paramount and essential.